Bills Digest No.
31, 2020–21
PDF version [420KB]
Paula Pyburne
Law and Bills Digest Section
Liz Kenny and Robert Anderson
Economic Policy Section
1
December 2020
Contents
Purpose of
the Bill
Structure of
the Bill
Committee
consideration
Statement of
Compatibility with Human Rights
Schedule 1
Schedule 2
Schedule
3—industry code penalties
Schedule 4
Date introduced: 28
October 2020
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Treasury
Commencement: Sections
1-3 on Royal Assent, Schedules 2-4 on the day after Royal Assent; Schedule 1
on the first 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October after Royal
Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at December 2020.
Purpose of the Bill
The Treasury
Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No 4) Bill 2020 contains four separate and
unrelated ‘streamlining and integrity measures’.[1]
Structure of the Bill
The Bill comprises four Schedules:
Structure of this Bills Digest
As the matters
covered by each of the Schedules are independent of each other, the relevant
background, stakeholder comments (where available) and analysis of the
provisions are set out under each Schedule number.
Committee consideration
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
The Bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry.
Details of the inquiry are at the
Inquiry homepage.
The Committee reported on 26 November 2020 and recommended
that the Bill be passed.[2]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
(Scrutiny of Bills Committee) commented on aspects of the measures set out in
Schedules 3 and 4 of the Bill.[3]
Those comments are canvassed under the relevant heading below.
Statement of Compatibility with
Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed
the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or
declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[4]
Schedule 1
Background
The Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) creates a
financial incentive for the installation of renewable energy power stations,
such as wind and solar farms, or hydro-electric power stations.[5]
Under the Renewable Energy Target, liable entities are required to surrender
large-scale generation certificates (LGCs) in proportion to the electricity
they acquire in a year.[6]
The LRET aims to meet the annual target for renewable electricity set out in
the Renewable
Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (REE Act).[7]
For 2020 the renewable power percentage is 19.31 per cent.[8]
This means liable entities (generally electricity retailers) are required to
surrender approximately
33.7 million LGCs to meet their LRET obligations for 2020.[9]
One LGC is created for each megawatt hour of eligible
renewable electricity produced.[10]
These can then be sold to liable entities (typically electricity retailers) who
then surrender these certificates to the Clean Energy Regulator,
allowing them to demonstrate their compliance with the renewable power target.
This also provides an additional source of revenue to the power station in
addition to the sale of the electricity generated.[11]
If a liable entity does not surrender sufficient
certificates for a particular period, they must pay a charge for this renewable
energy ‘shortfall’.[12]
If the entity surrenders additional certificates within, broadly, three years
of paying the charge (section 95 of the REE Act), they may apply to have
this charge refunded. The refund is paid under section 98 of the REE Act.
The tax treatment of this refund is currently unclear.
Key issues and provisions
At present, the tax treatment of refunds of renewable
energy shortfall charges is unclear.
To address this, Schedule 1 proposes to amend the Income Tax
Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA97) to include proposed section 59-100
to the end of Division 59. Division 59 broadly contains a number of
sections which categorise certain types of income as non-assessable, non-exempt
income (NANE income).[13]
Proposed subsection 59-100(1) states that a payment
to an entity under section 98 of the REE Act is not assessable income
and is not exempt income. The effect of an amount being NANE income is:
- the
amount is tax-free (that is, it is not assessable income and therefore not
taxed)[14]
- outgoings
incurred in deriving the amount are not deductible[15]
and
- the
amount is not taken into account when calculating the amount of a deduction
allowable for a tax loss.[16]
In relation to the above, the Thomson Reuters’ Australian
Tax Handbook notes:
Exempt income is not counted in working out taxable income,
but is counted in reducing prior year tax losses that can be deducted in the
current year and in reducing tax losses carried forward to later years. In
other words, exempt income will reduce a taxpayer’s tax losses before they can
be used to offset assessable income. In contrast, NANE income is not counted in
working out taxable income and, unlike exempt income, has no effect on tax
losses. NANE income therefore truly has no effect on a taxpayer’s
liability for income tax.[17]
[emphasis added]
Deduction
permitted
As noted above the general deduction rules in section 8-1
of the ITAA97 provides that an entity cannot normally deduct losses or
outgoings incurred in gaining NANE income.[18]
Proposed subsection 59-100(2) states that proposed subsection 59-100(1)
should be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether an entity can
deduct expenditure that it incurs in relation to large-scale generation
certificates. This ensures that entities that incur an expense to gain a refund
of a shortfall amount are not taxed on the income required to purchase
large-scale generation certificates, thereby undermining the benefit to the
company and reducing the effectiveness of the certificate market.
According to the 2019–20 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal
Outlook measure:
Legislating to ensure that no tax is payable when companies
receive a refund of their shortfall charge will enable the market for renewable
energy certificates to work as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while
ensuring affordable electricity for consumers.[19]
In response to the Government’s announcement of the
measures, the Clean Energy Regulator indicated it had no objection to the
changed tax treatment, and stated that ‘the use of shortfall is a commercial
decision that allows liable entities to shift demand and take advantage of
lower forward LGC prices in time of tight liquidity’.[20]
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has indicated the
measures ‘will enable the market for renewable energy certificates to work as
intended’, but noted that entities must self-assess under the existing law at
the time.[21]
As such, the ATO notes on its
website that an entity that understates a liability prior to the law being
implemented may leave that entity liable to general interest charges or
shortfall interest charges on the shortfall. However, the ATO further notes
that this would only apply after consideration of whether such penalties would
be an efficient, effective and ethical use of the ATO’s limited resources for
ensuring compliance.
Stakeholder
comments
At the time of writing no stakeholders appeared to have commented
on the measure proposed by Schedule 1 of the Bill.
Financial implications
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that the
measure is expected to have a cost to revenue of $70 million over four years
from 2019–20.[22]
Schedule 2
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) was
created by the Treasury
Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian
Financial Complaints Authority) Act 2018 (AFCA Act) as a ‘one
stop shop’ external dispute resolution scheme for complaints about
superannuation. Prior to the introduction of AFCA, there were a number of
extant dispute resolution schemes with overlapping jurisdictions, including the
Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT).[23]
As outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, the
AFCA Act received royal assent on 5 March 2018 and AFCA has
operated since 1 November 2018.[24]
Under the AFCA Act, the Superannuation
(Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (and consequentially the SCT) is to
be wound up within four years of the AFCA Act receiving royal assent.
The last date for this is 5 March 2022.
The second schedule to the Bill facilitates the closure of
the SCT and transitional arrangements involved with moving existing complaints
from the SCT to the AFCA. The transitional arrangements are clearly explained
in the Explanatory Memorandum and are consistent with the intended windup
originally introduced in the AFCA Act.
Schedule 3—industry code
penalties
Regulatory framework
‘An industry code is a code regulating the conduct of
participants in an industry in their dealings with each other or towards
consumers, whether mandatory or not.’[25]
Part IVB of the CCA provides the framework for industry codes—including
but not limited to, the Franchising Code of Conduct.
Within Part IVB, section 51ACB provides that ‘a
corporation must not, in trade or commerce, contravene an applicable industry
code’. For example, if a franchisor fails to provide disclosure documents as
required by the Franchising Code of Conduct, it will be in breach of the Code
and, correspondingly, in breach of the CCA.
The High Court has held that a failure to comply with an
industry code does not necessarily render an agreement void for illegality and
therefore unenforceable.[26]
Rather, the remedies available for a breach of an industry code include
injunctions,[27]
damages[28]
and other remedial orders,[29]
including third party redress.[30]
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which enforces
compliance with industry codes, can issue a public warning notice for likely
breaches of a code[31]
or use its random audit power to inspect documents or records required to be
kept pursuant to a prescribed industry code.[32]
Subsection 51AE(1) of the CCA provides that
regulations may prescribe an industry code, or specified provisions of an
industry code, for the purposes of Part IVB of that Act. In addition, subsection
51AE(2) provides that where regulations have prescribed an industry code then
the code may prescribe pecuniary penalties not exceeding 300 penalty units for
civil penalty provisions of that industry code.
The effect of subsection 51AE(2) is to allow each relevant
industry code to identify civil penalty provisions and to impose civil
penalties of up to 300 penalty units, being equivalent to $66,600.[33]
Franchising
The franchising sector is an important contributor to the
Australian economy. There are over 1,300 franchises operating in Australia and
around 97,000 franchisees, which are predominantly made up of small and family
businesses. They have a turnover in excess of $182 billion revenue and employ
over 594,000 people.[34]
The regulation of franchising has been subject to regular
scrutiny over the years.[35]
A voluntary industry code was introduced in February 1993, followed by a
mandatory code of conduct in 1998.[36]
Following multiple reviews of the sector the Competition and
Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Regulation 2014 (Franchising Code of
Conduct) was introduced with effect from January 2015.
Committee inquiry into franchising
On 22 March 2018, the Senate referred an
inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the Franchising Code of Conduct
to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services
(Joint Committee).[37]
The Joint Committee handed down its report entitled Fairness
in Franchising on 14 March 2019. The report made 71 recommendations to
improve the operation and effectiveness of the franchising sector.[38]
Relevant to this Bills Digest, the Joint Committee
identified the problems of the existing penalty regime associated with the
Franchising Code of Conduct.
For too long, some breaches have either not attracted a
penalty, or the penalty amounts have been derisory. The committee is firmly of
the view that the lack of consequences for breaching the Franchising [Code] …
undermines the ACCC's ability to ensure compliance with the codes. Where
penalties are manifestly insufficient, franchisors are likely to factor the
risk of a penalty into the cost of doing business. Where penalties are
unavailable or not applied, there is no incentive for a franchisor to comply
with the codes.[39]
The Joint Committee recommended that the Franchising
Taskforce consider amendments to the CCA and the Franchising Code of
Conduct so that:
- civil
pecuniary penalties (and, thereby, infringement notices) be made available for
all breaches of the Franchising Code of Conduct
- the
quantum of penalties available for breach of the Franchising Code of Conduct …
be significantly increased to ensure that penalties are a meaningful deterrent,
such as to at least reflect the penalties currently available under the
Australian Consumer Law[40]
and
- ensuring
that the penalties for a breach of the Franchising Code of Conduct are
prescribed in legislation, so that the limit on penalties under industry codes
in subsection 51AE(2) does not apply to franchising.[41]
Stakeholder comments
This recommendation was consistent with the information
provided to the Joint Committee by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission (ACCC).[42]
However, other stakeholders—in particular, the Franchise
Council of Australia (FCA)—opposed the ACCC's recommendations on increasing the
number and level of penalties in the Franchising Code. The FCA argued that the
current penalty regime is correctly tailored in terms of the Franchising Code
provisions and the quantum of penalties.[43]
Inter-agency Franchising Taskforce
The Joint Committee also recommended that the Australian
Government establish an inter-agency Franchising Taskforce to examine the
feasibility and implementation of a number of the committee's recommendations.[44]
Consistent with this recommendation, the Taskforce was
established, and an issues paper was circulated for comment by stakeholders.[45]
The Taskforce did not publish responses to the Issues Paper on the basis that
confidentiality would ‘encourage broad participation from the franchising
sector’.[46]
The Government formally responded to the Joint Committee
recommendations in August 2020.[47]
The Government noted that ‘the framework for industry codes should support
regulatory compliance, enforcement and appropriate consistency’.[48]
Relevant to this Bills Digest, the Government stated that it would amend the CCA
to increase the maximum civil pecuniary penalty available for a breach of an
industry code from 300 penalty units to 600 penalty units.[49]
Key issues and provisions
Item 1 in Schedule 3 to the Bill repeals the
reference to 300 penalty units in subsection 51AE(2) and inserts a reference to
600 penalty units, so that it will provide that an industry code prescribed by
the regulations ‘may prescribe pecuniary penalties not exceeding 600 penalty
units for civil penalty provisions of the industry code’.[50]
Contrary to the recommendation by Joint Committee, this effectively caps the
penalty for a breach of a franchising industry code.
Scrutiny of
Bills Committee comments
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee
noted that the Bill amends the CCA to prescribe a maximum civil penalty
of up to 600 penalty units, but took the view that ‘significant matters, such [as]
civil penalty provisions with high penalties, should be included in primary
legislation unless a sound justification for the use of delegated legislation
is provided’.[51]
Although the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill confirms
that the changes to penalties for breaching industry codes have been made in
response to the report of the Joint Committee (as outlined above) the Scrutiny
of Bills Committee drew Senators’ attention to the provision—but leaves it to
the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of allowing civil penalty provisions
with penalties of up to 600 penalty units to be included in delegated, rather than
primary, legislation.[52]
Financial
implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, the
amendment in Schedule 3 to the Bill will have no financial impact.[53]
Schedule 4
Background
The Coronavirus Omnibus Act contains a suite of
measures implemented by the Government in response to the coronavirus.[54]
Amongst other things, it provides a temporary mechanism for responsible
Ministers to change arrangements for meeting information and documentary
requirements under Commonwealth legislation in response to the challenges posed
by COVID‑19.[55]
Current law
Currently Schedule 5 of the Coronavirus Omnibus Act
applies in relation to a provision (called an affected provision)
of an Act or a legislative instrument that requires or permits any of the
following relevant matters:
- the
giving of information in writing
- the
signature of a person
- the
production of a document by a person
- the
recording of information
- the
retention of documents or information
- the
witnessing of signatures
- the
certification of matters by witnesses
- the
verification of the identity of witnesses and
- the
attestation of documents.[56]
Under Schedule 5, a responsible Minister for an affected
provision may determine by legislative instrument any of the following:
- an
affected provision is varied as specified in the determination in
relation to a period specified in the determination
- an
affected provision does not apply in relation to a period specified in
the determination or
- an
affected provision does not apply, and that another provision specified in
the determination applies instead, in relation to a period specified in the
determination.[57]
The responsible Minister must make such a determination
only if he, or she, is satisfied that the determination is in response to
circumstances relating to the coronavirus known as COVID-19.[58]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the originating
Bill:
The social distancing measures and the restrictions on
movement and gatherings introduced in response to the Coronavirus are expected
to cause difficulties with meeting information and documentary requirements
under Commonwealth legislation.
In recognition of the importance of continued business
transactions and government service delivery during the Coronavirus, this
measure provides flexibility to temporarily adjust legal obligations and
provide certainty about the appropriate ways to meet information and
documentary requirements.[59]
The provisions of Schedule 5 are stated to have no
operation after 31 December 2020.[60]
Further, the provisions of Schedule 5 were intended to be automatically
repealed at the end of 31 December 2020.[61]
Key issues
and provisions
Item 1 of Schedule 4 to this Bill repeals and
substitutes subitems 1(7) and 1(8) of Schedule 5 to the Coronavirus Omnibus
Act.
Under proposed subitem 1(7) a determination by the
responsible Minister operates until item 1 is repealed by proposed subitem
1(8). Proposed subitem 1(8) extends this measure until the later of:
Importantly, the designated Minister must not determine a
date later than 31 March 2021 unless he, or she, is satisfied that the determination
is in response to circumstances relating to the coronavirus known as COVID-19.[63]
Scrutiny of Bills Committee comments
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee noted the operation of the
Bill and expressed its concern about:
… enabling delegated legislation to override or modify the
operation of legislation which has been passed by Parliament as such clauses
impact on the level of parliamentary scrutiny and may subvert the appropriate
relationship between the Parliament and the Executive. [64]
Noting the contents of the Explanatory Memorandum to the
Bill in relation to the proposed amendments, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee
expressed its continuing concern:
… that proposed item 2 of Schedule 5 would allow the minister
to extend the operation of the modification power beyond 31 March 2021, without
the need to amend the primary legislation. The committee does not consider that
a desire for flexibility is a sufficient justification for such an approach,
particularly noting that Parliament has resumed a regular sitting schedule
which would enable a bill to extend the operation of the modification provision
to be considered by the Parliament in a timely manner.[65]
The Committee requested the Assistant Treasurer’s advice
as to whether the Bill could be amended ‘to remove the ability of the minister
to, by legislative instrument, extend the operation of the modification power
in Schedule 5 of the Act beyond 31 March 2021’.[66]
Financial implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, the
amendments in Schedule 4 to the Bill will have no financial impact.[67]
[1]. M
Sukkar (Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing), ‘Second
reading speech: Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 4) Bill 2020’,
House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 28 October 2020, p. 8.
[2]. Senate
Economics Legislation Committee, Treasury
Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 4) Bill 2020 [Provisions], November 2020,
p. 13.
[3]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 16, 2020, 16 November 2020, pp. 25–28.
[4]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pages 71–75 of the
Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[5]. See section 17 of the Renewable
Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 for a full list of eligible renewable
energy sources.
[6]. Clean
Energy Regulator (CER), ‘Shortfall
and shortfall charges’, CER website, 17 July 2018.
[7]. Section
40 of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 sets out the annual
targets.
[8]. Clean
Energy Regulator (CER), ‘The
renewable power percentage’, CER website, 10 March 2020.
[9]. Ibid.
[10]. Renewable Energy
(Electricity) Act 2000, section 17C and subsection 18(1).
[11]. Department
of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER), ‘Renewable
Energy Target Scheme’, DISER website, 12 November 2020.
[12]. Renewable Energy
(Electricity) Act 2000, Part 4 generally.
[13]. ITAA97,
section 59.1.
[14]. ITAA97,
subsection 6-15(3).
[15]. ITAA97,
paragraph 8-1(2)(c).
[16]. ITAA97,
section 36-10.
[17]. RL
Deutsch, ML Friezer, IG Fullerton, PJ Hanley and TJ Snape, Australian Tax
Handbook, Tax Return edn, Thomson Reuters, Sydney, 2020, p.
230.
[18]. ITAA97,
paragraph 8-1(2)(c).
[19]. J
Frydenberg (Treasurer) and M Cormann (Minister for Finance), Mid-year
economic and fiscal outlook—2019–20, p. 169.
[20]. CER,
‘[21]. Australian
Taxation Office (ATO), ‘Removing
the tax on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges’,
ATO website, last modified 5 November 2020.
[22]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 4) Bill 2020, p. 3.
[23]. See
J Tomaras, Treasury
Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian
Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017, Bills digest, 55, 2017-18,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2017.
[24]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 4) Bill 2020, p. 11.
[25]. RV
Miller, Miller’s Australian competition and consumer law annotated, 42nd
edn, Thomson Reuters, Sydney, 2020, p. 497.
[26]. Master Education
Services Pty Limited v Ketchell (2008) 236 CLR 101, [2008]
HCA 38.
[27]. CCA, section 80.
[28]. CCA, section 82.
[29]. CCA, section 86C.
[30]. CCA, section
51ADB.
[31]. CCA, section
51ADA.
[32]. CCA, section
51ADD.
[33]. Under
section 4AA of the Crimes
Act 1914 the value of a penalty unit is subsection to indexation. The
current value is $222: Notice of Indexation
of the Penalty Unit Amount, 14 May 2020. Subsection 76(1) of the CCA
provides that the Court may order a person who has contravened a civil penalty
provision of an industry code to pay the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty.
[34]. Franchising
Taskforce, Developing
the Government’s response to the Fairness in Franchising Report of the
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services,
Issues paper, Australian Government, 2020, p. 3.
[35]. See
P Pyburne, Franchising
in Australia: striking a balance or tipping the balance?, Research
paper series 2013–14, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, November 2013.
[36]. P
Reith (Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business), Government
introduces Franchising Code of Conduct, media release, 19 June 1998;
Franchise Council of Australia, Franchise
Council welcomes mandatory code of conduct, media release, 19 June
1998.
[37]. The
terms of reference, submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Corporations and Financial Services and the report on the operation and
effectiveness of the Franchising Code of Conduct are available at the inquiry
homepage.
[38]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (PJCCFS), Fairness in
Franchising, Canberra, March 2019.
[39]. Ibid.,
p. xix.
[40]. The
Australian Consumer Law is located in Schedule 2 to the CCA.
[41]. PJCCFS,
Fairness in
Franchising, op. cit., recommendation 16.1, p. xxxvi.
[42]. Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Submission
to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Inquiry
into the operation and effectiveness of the Franchising Code of Conduct,
[Submission no. 45], 11 May 2018, pp. 4, 5.
[43]. Franchise
Council of Australia, Submission
to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Inquiry
into the operation and effectiveness of the Franchising Code of Conduct,
[Submission no. 29], May 2018, p. 29.
[44]. PJCCFS,
Fairness in
Franchising, op. cit., recommendation 1.1, p. xxiii.
[45]. M
Cash (Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) and M Sukkar
(Assistant Treasurer), Taskforce
seeks feedback on fairness in franchising, media release, 23 August
2019.
[46]. Franchising
Taskforce, Developing
the Government’s response, op. cit., p. 1 states: ‘To encourage broad
participation from the franchising sector, the Taskforce will maintain
confidentiality of feedback and not publish responses to the Issues Paper.’
[47]. Australian
Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and
Financial Services inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the
Franchising Code of Conduct report: Fairness in Franchising, August
2020.
[48]. Ibid.,
p. 15.
[49]. Ibid.
[50]. This
is equivalent to $133,200.
[51]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 16, 2020, op. cit., p. 25.
[52]. Ibid.,
p. 26.
[53]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 4) Bill 2020, p. 4.
[54]. For
information about all of the measures in the originating Bill see Parliament of
Australia, ‘Coronavirus
Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 homepage’,
Australian Parliament website.
[55]. Coronavirus
Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Act (Coronavirus
Omnibus Act), Schedule 5.
[56]. Ibid.,
Schedule 5, subitem 1(1).
[57]. Ibid.,
subitem 1(2).
[58]. Ibid.,
subitem 1(4).
[59]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Measures (No. 2)
Bill 2020, p. 69.
[60]. Coronavirus
Omnibus Act, Schedule 5, subitem 1(7).
[61]. Ibid.,
subitem 1(8).
[62]. Inserted
by proposed subitems 1(8) and 2(3) in Schedule 4 to the Bill. Under the
current Administrative
Arrangements Order, this is the Attorney-General.
[63]. Inserted
by proposed subitem 2(2) in Schedule 4 to the Bill.
[64]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 16, 2020, op. cit., p. 27.
[65]. Ibid.,
p. 28.
[66]. Ibid.
[67]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 4) Bill 2020, p. 5.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.